Here's how it breaks down....

1) Hydrocarbons are abundant but limited.
2) We are worried about Carbon gasses.
3) Hydrogen has less BTUs to it than a Hydrocarbon
4) Fuel Cells are far for efficient than combustion engines. (~40% vs. ~22%)

So as the cost and worry about hydrocarbons go up, the use of hydrocarbons to make electricity or hydrogen will go down. The use of Hydrogen will then go up for current uses of hydrocarbons (cars, trains, boats, lawn mowers, etc, etc) being quite, carbon neutral, a cheaper than the hydrocarbons.

So you guys can talk about who has more experience with all this or that, or understands the technology better. But any good economist will tell you that we will have a hydrogen market, it will be big, we will use it everywhere, oh and Hydrocarbons are not going away anytime soon.

Posted by: The Cenobyte at April 9, 2008 10:10 AM

Here's my two cents worth along with my credentials; I operated an electrolytic O2 generator manufactered by Treadwell corporation aboard a nuclear powered submarine. It was about the size of a large file cabinet or about six feet high by five long and two feet thick. It produced 120 cubic feet of oxygen per hour, and about 240 cubic feet of hydrogen per hour at 3000psig. Not having any need for the hydrogen, we discharged it overboard. It took 1050 amps DC at 2.5 volts to do this and that is where the problems come from. We had a nuclear reactor so power was not a problem but for mass production another matter. That and the storage. Hydrogen works best in a cryogenic liquid state but we don't have materials with the right insulation values to keep H2 liquid for long. So for the time being, we have to use a gas system, with it's weight and space negatives.That can be overcome by higher pressures.
I think we can set up an Hydrogen infrastructure in a decade by setting up Hydrogen refueling stations using electrolysis powered by solar and wind generators. Six generators could be set up in the space of an average gas station's building. You don't need a transport system for hydrogen; just water and the Romans did that thousands of years ago.That's the good news. Remember, we don't have to set an infrastrucure overnight. I would love to set a station out here in California for those 600 cars Honda is going to test. Also, hydrogen can be used in regular cars with the right alterations. All it takes is money; If I had the money some of those Hollywood enviromentalists have I would be on my way to trying start this Hydrogen business. It may not be profitable at first, but I believe it could be as big as oil has become.

Posted by: DOUGLAS GILLARD at April 8, 2008 09:02 PM

I get the impression that until a good storage technique is developed using hydrogen is pretty pointless.
http://www.spacemart.com/reports/Hydrogen_Storage_In_Nanoparticles_Works_999.html

It has great efficiency but only practical way of storing and transporting it I know of is as ammonia. (I recall there is a project around America somewhere with a prototype fuel cell train that runs of H2 stored that way) Stored air is a great intermediary system with many uses and while much much less efficient than batteries or fuel cells it does tend to be cheaper and last a lot longer. I am all in favour of not replacing giant lead acid arrays every decade and wouldn't mind a pressure vessel like the space shuttle uses for nitrogen but if that were practical nasa wouldn't be still using the same ones they hoped to replace twenty years ago.
The pressure tanks proposed by the aircar person earlier are pretty nifty and seem safe but if they could hold those tiny H2 thingies we would all be alot happier. Imagine a H2 combustion engine that purified city air as a byproduct! If the ecofreaks weren't so invested in hybrid biofuel cludges there wouldn't be such opposition to it.

Btw. I also approve of airships like the other guy and as I said on Christians earlier post :
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/004001.html

Posted by: PowerBill at April 8, 2008 05:52 PM

I don't know about the merits of a hydrogen powered car, but there are alternatives to using fossil fuel to generate Hydrogen. A key technology is Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC). OTEC can generate electricity by using the temperature differences that exists in ocean waters to run a heat engine. Hydrogen can be produced via electrolysis using electricity generated by OTEC. The OTEC technology has been demonstrated in the past. Key issue is when will it be commercially viable.

Posted by: Warren at April 8, 2008 10:02 AM

Why use hydrogen cells, which still rely on fosil fuels to be created when you can use water. water powered cars produce no emissions and use no fosil fuels. google it and see for yourself.

Posted by: JSmith at April 7, 2008 10:23 PM

Jomama

I'm me. And methane is a better energy source than hydrogen. More BTUs per SCF. Look it up. So by turning it into hydrogen, you are losing energy. And, in case you didn't know, methane doesn't exactly grow on trees on this planet. Most of what we can use is a component of natural gas. That will probably remain the case until we can figure out a way to tent swamps and collect cow farts.

BTW, 35 years in the energy business here. And you ?

Posted by: Mike C. at April 7, 2008 08:39 PM

You need a lot of electricity to get Hydrogen from water. Or you get it fron petroleum. If the plan is to use hydrogen from H2O than you have to build coal plants or nukes to supply that power.

I read some were that 90 to 95 percent of the daily driving is less than 100 miles a day. a plug in battery system for a battery powered hybrid auto that would let you drive 105 miles at 60 miles an hour with the air condtioner on would do much to solve the enery problem. It must be coupled with a small fuel burning engine of 2 or 3 cyclinders that helpes keep the battery recharged betwen plug ins and extend therange of the auto..

The fuel will be E85 made not from corn but celeous alchol from farm waste, lawn clippings, switch grass, wood chips and saw dust. Garbage and alchol from sugar grown in the south, porto rico and the rest of the carabian.

Ethanol from corn is a joke! You have to burn one gallon of fuel to get back 1.3 gallons of fuel. Switch grass can be grown on marginal land so it does not impact the food supply. You don't have to water switch grass, fertiliz it or spray it with bug spray all of which is made from oil. You simply mow it 2 or three times a year and graze cattle on it between mowings. Switch grass is also a nitrogen fixer that removes nitrogen from the air and puts it in the ground. This improves the soil. It also takes carbon dioxide from the air and fixes it into the ground as well.

The trick is getting that battery that will lsst the life of the car, will add only 25% of the car's cost with out adding to much weight to the auto. also needed are the ezimes and bacteria that brakes cellouse down into sugar. There has been great strides in this recently.

Posted by: david at April 7, 2008 03:48 PM

Hydrogen is not an energy source, it has to be created. Creating hydrogen is done using fosil fuels.

Posted by: Entropyisfun at April 7, 2008 11:12 AM

"Tell me why fuel cells aren't the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies."

Because carying around a tank of explosive gas in your car or plane might not be as fun as it sounds. And yes, gasoline is explosive, but gasoline doesn't constantly leak. Ever have a helium balloon that didn't go limp?

Posted by: Josh at April 7, 2008 08:05 AM

Ah, might have taken the 'disingenious' dig a bit more serious than I should have; which is why I was a bit snippy. Still though, a five year warming trend when global temperatures haven't risen in a decade doesn't make a crisis, and we've had warmer decades than today around in the earlier part of the century. "Climate change," ie the weather, is an overhyped social movement that is long on hysteria, and short on reason.

Forgive me if I bow out on a long in-depth discussion on the millenial belief that if we do not repent, civilization will end.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at April 6, 2008 05:43 PM

I agree, that's pretty underhanded on their part. I stand corrected about you being disingenuous. They should have clearly indicated the change.

Still, the overall conclusion of the article seems to be that a short-term lowering of temperatures doesn't mean they won't increase in the long term (quoting from the original, I think):

"But experts say we are still clearly in a long-term warming trend - and they forecast a new record high temperature within five years."

The picking of sides is juvenile. Why can't we just discuss facts?

Posted by: doo at April 6, 2008 05:00 PM

Doo, BBC changed the article.
http://instapundit.com/archives2/017467.php

Down the memory hole, Orwell would be proud. One hell of a side you have, chief!

Posted by: Vercingetorix at April 6, 2008 04:03 PM

@Vercingetorix

About the BBC article on global temperatures... Did you read the article or just the headline? Because it pretty much refutes your point.

I can't find the "quote" you posted anywhere in the article. Quoting a paraphrase it a bit disingenuous.

Posted by: doo at April 6, 2008 03:36 PM

>>> "The hydrogen in a modenrn fuel cell comes from simple, easily, and safely transportable compounds like methane (CH4) - passed through a platinum catalyst. Pinnheads"

Oh, okay, so all we have to do is tap the Earth's vast oceans of methane and we have pollution free energy.

Here's all you need to learn about Hydrogen Fuel Cells to know they are a dead end for consumer transportation: Ballard Power, the world's foremost technology and reserach firm in the FC field recently *gave up* on developing fuel cells for cars. They looked into their crystal balls, saw that no energy efficient source of hydrogen was anywhere on the horizon and realized it was never going to happen.

Couple that with the need for the nation to spend a trillion dollars on a hydrogen refueling infrastructure and its easy to see that the dream would never come to fruition.

FCs are a dead end technology for automobiles. There is, however, a company producing vehicles that run on compressed air, if you can believe that. Uses some gas to heat the air but is commercially available in the next 24 months and gets around 106 miles per gallon.

http://www.gizmag.com/compressed-air-car-set-for-us-launch-in-2010/8896/

Posted by: John at April 6, 2008 02:58 PM

"The hydrogen in a modenrn fuel cell comes from simple, easily, and safely transportable compounds like methane (CH4) - passed through a platinum catalyst."

The two major suppliers of platinum are South Africa and Russia, respectively. ( Which are both also the major suppliers of palladium, the major alternative to platinum for fuel cells. )

If you want to follow platinum and palladium developments, a good source is Kitco.com http://www.kitco.com/ . See also Platinum Today
http://www.platinum.matthey.com/index.html

Having Russia as a supplier poses obvious geopolitical issues. South Africa also is interesting, because it recently has been experiencing power system disruptions which has, among other things, impaired its platinum output.

Posted by: Duncan Kinder at April 6, 2008 11:58 AM

China issues by silver moon--
Bed the roads..
Curtain steels are iron walls.
Coats of mails are pile up arms.
Pilfers shorts are long to ages.
Corner timers get the tastes.

Body creaky comes to boards.
Evil powers bed the roads.
Playing torches a light is bust.
Fighting men are P.L.A with guns.

Draw the bows by tyrant arms.
Vulture leaders bright are stars.
Drum up powers get the pitches.
Scoring ranks have money tills.

Rich as Tory scorn to go.
Big are kings will hunted in mind.
Brains to wash are fit to crowns.
Come uneven go on rings.
----------Cheung Shun Sang=Cauchy3----------

Posted by: cheung shun sang=cauchy3 at April 6, 2008 09:13 AM

this has no relation to this story sorry but it think its post worthy aybe yall could follow up on it.....
also defensetech needs an open thread spot for posting mis. things....

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Defense_Focus_Carrier_strategy_Part_5_999.html
so read it and WTF.....

Posted by: James at April 5, 2008 04:26 PM

Yeah - have to agree that most of the comments about the thermodynamics of hydrogen fuel cells are rather uninformed. Fuel cells are thermodynamically more efficient than engines based on Otto, Diesel, or Brayton cycles. The latter's efficiency tends to be ~40% (based on Carnot), whereas a fuel cell is electrochemical. The ceiling for fuel cell efficiency is ~83%, and most fuel cells tend to operate at around ~50% thermodynamic efficiency for motive applications. This increase in efficiency compensates for the thermodynamic inefficiencies in converting hydrocarbon fuels to hydrogen. In addition, the ability to run on hydrogen enables the use of non-fossil energy sources such as wind, solar, hydroelectric, and nuclear. As for the professor who called fuel cells "the worst battery ever" - I think he's set his control volume incorrectly for his analysis. There are some pretty big weight advantages for fuel cells (like not having to carry their entire oxidant supply with them, and not having to carry fuel & oxidant in the form of metals). They're more tolerant of environmental conditions, whereas batteries tend to experience significant derating when operating temperatures shift by more than 10-20°C from room temperature. Finally, fuel cells have better endurance and are faster to recharge since the reactants are supplied as gases.

Posted by: George Skinner at April 5, 2008 12:21 PM

"repeal the first law of thermodynamics ..." who the hell are you? The hydrogen in a modenrn fuel cell comes from simple, easily, and safely transportable compounds like methane (CH4) - passed through a platinum catalyst. Pinnheads

Posted by: Jomama at April 5, 2008 11:19 AM

The only way we are going to be able to rely on hydrogen as a fuel is:

#1. Successful hot fusion reactors: Electrolysis. You can make hydrogen with a fusion reactor, but not oil/gas.

#2. A breakthrough in technology for safety/transport of all this hydrogen, so that cars and fuel trucks arent mobile bombs.

Sure, if we get those 2 tech breakthroughs, then our energy needs will no longer be an issue. Hot fusion is the only possible limitless energy source that we might see in our lifetimes. Even then, it is not likely to be a reality any time soon.

Posted by: Kaltes at April 4, 2008 07:30 PM

Well, glad to see at least a few commentors set Christian straight. On this planet at least, hydrogen is not an energy source. Once heard a prof describe it this way...

"Worst. Battery. Ever."

Before we can utilize hydrogen as an energy source (other than hypothetical fusion reactors), Congress will have to repeal the laws of thermodynamics.

And it wouldn't surprise me in the least if they gave it a go. When you read stuff like this, remember that simple phrase - "TANSTAAFL."

Posted by: Mike C. at April 4, 2008 07:01 PM

The Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) team led by aerospace engineering professor Kwon Se-jin said the 2.5 kilogram unit stayed airborne on 500 grams of fuel for over 10 hours, giving the unit 10 times the endurance of conventional battery-powered UAVs.

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news10.11b.html

Posted by: Vercingetorix at April 4, 2008 06:29 PM

Props to josephdietrich for pointing out something which is so often conveniently overlooked, namely, that the energy still has to come from somewhere. As the post points out, this technology is most useful for small (tactical) UAVs.

Posted by: TrustButVerify at April 4, 2008 04:31 PM

Boeing is flying on fumes? Well, you didn't hear it from me first..

Well, being out-maneuvered for the previous contract must have really hit them in the head hard...so much to get some good press going. PR at its finest...

Posted by: Sergeantgambit at April 4, 2008 04:16 PM

Blacksmith's cost per kW numbers are way off for PEM fuel cells (1-2 orders of magnitude too high, actually), but he's generally correct that fuel cells aren't ready for aviation use. Current fuel cell technology can't match the power:weight ratio of gas turbines, and weight is everything in an aircraft. Hydrogen storage is also problematic because the storage media available today can't match hydrocarbons for energy density. I can see some pretty cool niche applications for a PEM fuel cell, though: next to no heat signature, very quiet, and extremely low emissions. Could be useful for some military applications...

Boeing should be congratulated for spending money on some very forward-looking research. Fuel cells may not be competitive today, but that may change in the future.

Posted by: George Skinner at April 4, 2008 04:06 PM

Airships are great, but for that, you have to write your Senator. And there are a limited number of missions for airships that cannot be covered by rail, truck or even ship more efficiently.

For military purposes, Darpa's Walrus (dead or Zombie by now) catches my pantaloons on fire. That is an innovative solution to our problems. BUT! We already field a Maritime Positioning System with vessels in the general area of conflict zones full of heavy gear for our troops. So in a first hours of war scenario, we have a decent way to land troops en masse and hold the line. The efficiencies and speed of airships will not necessarily provide a boon to that system.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at April 4, 2008 03:50 PM

since it seems that I am the only person on Earth who is focused on creating an air transport system that relies upon SOLAR POWER, I'm going to chip in....

Running an AIRPLANE on electrical power, whether generated via fuel cells, internal combustion engines married to generators, or even solar cells.....is novel, cute, and virtually worthless in practical terms, at least at present.

what is practical is this: running an AIRSHIP on solar power, or fuel cells, or biodiesel jets. Primarily because the airship does not need to generate the amount of thrust needed to fly as does an airplane. There are other considerations as well.

properly designed and constructed airships can revolutionize aviation. Speeds can be reached to 300mph.

Airships have military applications in transport, OFFENSIVE roles, and numerous other roles such as surveillance, marine interdiction, anti mine/submarine platform, communications, et. al.

(Note: NOT BLIMPS!, nor zeppelins, nor any other glorified balloon)

Posted by: campbell at April 4, 2008 03:04 PM

At the end of the day, the important thing to remember is that hydrogen is not a fuel, but rather an energy storage device. It is, essentially, a battery. You put energy into the process of making it, and you get some (hopefully most) of that energy back out when you use it up (either by burning in a rocket engine or catalyzing it in a fuel cell).

How you make that hydrogen; now therein lies the problem. Renewables might be useful for this, nuclear is a more likely option.

As an aside regarding Vercigetorix's links:

The Sugar Loaf field "may be up to 40 billion" barrels. At current US consumption rates (7.55 billion barrels a year), that would last 5 years.

Current optimistic estimates are looking at 100 billion barrels of recoverable oil from Bakken. That is about 13 years worth at current US consumption rates.

Both require high technology and a large energy investment to exploit, much larger than the old "gushers" of the past. True, we will never run out of oil or other fossil fuels. But the costs of extraction, and thus the cost of those fuels, is heading in one direction only, and this has all kinds of economic implications.

Until the magical fusion fairy comes and saves us all, that is.

Posted by: josephdietrich at April 4, 2008 02:17 PM

Thanks guys...gotta run to my "remedial thermodynamics class"...;-)

(it really was an honest question...)

Posted by: Christian at April 4, 2008 02:14 PM

im sick of hearing about how enviomentaly freidnly fuel cells or electric cars are there not because the power comes from a bloodly great big power station running on coal only when we have hidrogen Fusion power will it be worth using electric cars and the like
and from a purly military practical perspective desil fuel cells are far more convent and far less explosive

Posted by: sam at April 4, 2008 02:08 PM

It's currently generated mostly via steam reforming of natural gas or coal gasification. (http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/fuels/hydrogen/currenttechnology.html) You may notice that both of these require ... fossil fuels.

You could also crack hydrogen out of water via electrolysis, i.e., running electrical current through an electrolyte-water solution. The electricity we could use to do this today is mostly (70%) generated by burning ... fossil fuels.

I don't know about you, but I am starting to see a pattern.

Posted by: josephdietrich at April 4, 2008 01:39 PM

Can anyone explain to me where the hydrogen to power the fuel cell comes from?

Posted by: Jim at April 4, 2008 01:14 PM

There are two main downsides; the cost needed to actually make a PEM fuel cell and what you need to do to convert the electrical power into useful work. For the general aviation community the first is the killer. For the commercial and military markets, it's the latter.

In the first case (GA), you run into the fact that for now, PEMs use some pretty exotic materials that aren't cheap. The number I've heard back in '04 was that for every kW of electrical power you generate, the materials for the fuel cell (not including the fuel gasses, which have their own volumetric efficiency and catastrophic-failure issues, I should add), one had to spend roughly $10,000 due mostly to the platinum membrane. That's about the same to put a pound into low Earth orbit; and it's per one-and-a-quarter hp. I haven't heard of any earth-shattering advances along that front in the years since, and for a typical aircraft engine you need a lot of power. Also, PEM membranes are very susceptible to contamination and corrosion damage, in which case they simply won't work at all in the area where the damage occurs, which can easily accumulate over time. That means you need some very heavy-duty air filters, or you need to use purified oxygen. Either of which would add even more to the expense.

The other issue is that using electricity won't help in a jet engine because basically all of the energy in a jet comes from the burning the fuel in the combustor. That's not electrical energy that needs to be converted before it can be used, it's raw heat expanding the working fluid, which can then do work directly. PEMs should do ok for driving a propellor once the cost drops, but they simply won't work where any kind of modern airliner levels of speed are required, due to the tip-speed limitations of the props.

On the other hand, there's some very interesting developments with nanotube-based capacitors. For prop-driven GA or light recon aircraft, those capacitors and/or fuel cells may do very nicely once all the practicality bugs are worked out, and I have to admit that I'm looking forward to more posts about this type of development.

Posted by: Blacksmith at April 4, 2008 12:41 PM

"But that doesn't mean we won't come to a point (very soon) where daily production rates will go into permanent decline and the economies that depend on ever increasing supply will suffer through massive price increases."

There are already indications that the "peak" may have passed in 2005 at 85MMbbl/day. The big problem right now is not supply, but demand. Demand in the U.S. and other developed countries is actually falling, but is more than offset by rising demand in China, India and OPEC countries. Even if you could pump more crude out of the ground, the infrastructure to process more than 85MMbbl/day just isn't there and there's no incentive for OPEC to increase production. There is one possible bright spot in the Bakken Formation(google it), but even if that pans out, it'll take 5-10 years to get that crude in the pipeline and where will the refineries be built?

Matt Simons "Twilight in the Desert" is excellent reading on this subject. While focused on the Saudis, it's very enlightening reading for those who think gasoline comes from a pump on the corner...

Posted by: Diogenes at April 4, 2008 12:34 PM

Ah, yes, global warming...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

"This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory."

I'll be in my parka, revving my SUV.

Heh, still, I'll push the crazy train to West Hysteria so long as we get new nukes and 100 mpg space cars, and weaken the Russian-Arab-Chavez axis of petrocrats. Stop Global Warming now!

Posted by: Vercingetorix at April 4, 2008 12:23 PM

"Tell me why fuel cells aren't the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies."

Because hydrogen isn't an energy source - unless you know of a large untapped source of pure hydrogen on the planet somewhere. Please don't bother to bring up electrolysis - suggesting putting more energy into making your fuel than you get out of it should be grounds for sentencing to a remedial class of thermodynamics. Nearly all hydrogen production is currently from the cracking of natural gas - very inefficient per btu and giving lie to the concept that hydrogen is not "carbon-based".

Posted by: Diogenes at April 4, 2008 12:15 PM

"Tell me why fuel cells aren't the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies"

Two reasons: Because we don't have a good way of making Hydrogen... and because storing and transporting it isn't nearly as easy as oil.

And to answer the second poster... no, we aren't running out, we will never run out. But that doesn't mean we won't come to a point (very soon) where daily production rates will go into permanent decline and the economies that depend on ever increasing supply will suffer through massive price increases.

(what we're seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg)

oh ya, and then there's climate change...

The US Military is the 2nd largest consumer of oil in the world.. it has a serious interest in finding and using alternatives ASAP.

Posted by: Chris at April 4, 2008 12:08 PM

"Tell me why fuel cells aren't the answer for the dwindling carbon-based energy supplies."

Um, because we aren't running out of carbon-based energy sources?

http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news12.17d.html
http://www.nextenergynews.com/news1/next-energy-news2.13s.html

Among lots more...
Still, its a cool breakthrough.

Posted by: Vercingetorix at April 4, 2008 11:59 AM

First!

Posted by: First!man at April 4, 2008 11:40 AM